I am not speaking for or against this idea, but just noting that historically efforts like this covering a variety of network technologies over the last 20 years or so have usually seen network or hardware improvements make the requirements go away before the standard is complete.
Hal > -----Original Message----- > From: Ludwig Seitz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 2:52 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [jose] More compact format > > On 08/29/2013 07:33 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > Out of curiosity, I encoded an example JWS object using a notional > > serialization based on CBOR [1][2]. If you use a lightly optimized > > format (cbor([unprotected, protected, payload, signature])), then you > > actually end up being around 33% smaller than the compact > > representation, around 10% smaller after base64url-encoding the CBOR. > > And if you don't support protected headers (and there's direct > > signing), you don't need a base64 encoder/decoder because CBOR > > supports octet strings natively. Full results below. > > > > Just sayin'. > > > > --Richard > > > Would there be interest in the WG (and would the charter cover this) to > work on a constrained devices profile of JWS/JWE ? > > > /Ludwig > > > -- > Ludwig Seitz, PhD > SICS Swedish ICT AB > Ideon Science Park > Building Beta 2 > Scheelevägen 17 > SE-223 70 Lund > > Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51 > http://www.sics.se > _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
